For some antivirus products, the minimal file access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is sufficient to trigger real-time protection. Avast waits until just before a program executes to run a real-time scan. In testing, it wiped out almost 80 percent of my malware samples immediately on launch.
Avast detected most of the remaining samples at some point as they attempted to install and run. In a couple of cases, it activated a powerful analysis tool called DeepScan. Avast also invoked DeepScan to make sure that a couple of my malware-testing programs weren't themselves malicious.
In one case, fortunately the last sample I tested, Avast requested a boot time scan for complete cleanup. That scan took almost an hour, and required my attention every so often to make decisions about the disposition of particular malware traces. You can launch a boot time scan at will, if you suspect the regular scan has missed something.
One way or another, Avast detected 93 percent of my samples, the same asF-Secure Anti-Virus 2015. However, because Avast allowed installation of some executable malware traces, its final score came out to 9.0 points, while F-Secure managed 9.3. The absolute winner among products tested with this sample set is Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015), which earned 10 of 10 possible points.
Avast's previous edition was among the first products exposed to my malicious URL blocking test. For many, many months, its 79 percent blocking rate stood as the very best score in this test. More recently, several products have surpassed that score. At present,McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015, with 85 percent blocking, is at the top. The current edition of Avast blocked 72 percent of the malicious downloads, which is still quite good.
Okay Phishing Protection
Avast's 2014 edition blocked 69 percent of those malicious downloads by completely preventing access to the URL. The 2015 edition blocked just 29 percent at the URL level. Its success rate at detecting and blocking fraudulent (phishing) websites was about the same.
As always, I exposed five test systems to a collection of very new suspected phishing URLs. Avast protected one test system, while antiphishing champ Norton managed another. The other three relied on built-in phishing protection in Firefox, Chrome, and Internet Explorer. Since the precise collection of URLs is different for every test, I report on the product's success relative to the other test systems.
Avast's blocking rate lagged 25 percentage points behind Norton's, which puts it almost precisely in the middle of recently tested products. It lagged 22 points behind Firefox, and 23 points behind Chrome. Yes, Avast beat Internet Explorer's SmartScreen Filter, but almost every product beats IE. The only recent exception is ThreatTrack Vipre Antivirus 2015.
I'm a big fan of the new network-scanning component. Router security is definitely important, but nobody else seems to be doing anything about it. However, this nifty new feature isn't sufficient to put Avast at the top.
I recommend downloading and running Reimage. It's a computer repair tool that has been proven to identify and fix many Windows problems with a high level of success.
I've used it in the past to identify and fix everything from blue screens (BSOD's), ActiveX errors, corrupt files and processes, dll/exe/sys errors, recover lost memory, Windows update problems, defragging, malware removal etc.
You can download it direct from this link http://downloadreimage.com/download.php. (This link will automatically start a download of Reimage that you can save to your computer.)
In addition to checking scores with the major testing labs, I put each antivirus through hands-on testing. I start by opening a folder containing a collection of malware samples. The simple access that occurs when Windows Explorer gets file information for display was enough to trigger AVG's real-time protection. It detected 72 percent of the samples on sight and offered to remove them.
Next, I launched the samples that weren't wiped out immediately. Overall, AVG detected 79 percent of these samples and earned 7.8 of 10 possible points. That's definitely on the low side, but I give significantly more weight to the independent lab tests. My own malware-blocking test serves mostly to give me hands-on experience with each product's way of handling real-time protection.
One feature of AVG's Web TuneUp browser extension is Site Safety, which promises to warn you before you visit a "risky or dangerous website." Apparently Site Safety doesn't apply to URLs that point directly to malware programs; Site Safety didn't kick in at all during my malicious URL blocking test. However, of the 100-odd newly reported malicious URLs I tried, the real-time protection component wiped out 54 percent. That's better than the current average of 41 percent.
McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 holds the top score in this test, with 85 percent of the URLs blocked. Avast managed a respectable 72 percent.
Unusual Phishing Protection
Phishing we... Read more
Very Good Malware Blocking
As with SuperAntiSpyware Professional 6.0, Panda's on-access scanning doesn't spring into action until you attempt to execute a file. Unlike SuperAntiSpyware, Panda did a good job blocking malware at launch. It deleted three quarters of the samples before they could execute.
A few of the samples did manage to launch; Panda caught some of those later in the process. Its detection rate of 86 percent is tied with Bitdefender for the best detection rate among products tested with my current sample set. Panda's overall score of 8.0 can't beat Bitdefender's 8.3 points, but it's better than the rest of the current group, includingKaspersky Anti-Virus (2015)'s 7.9 points.
Panda Free Antivirus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart
You'll note in the chart that AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014 and various others tested with my previous malware collection made a significantly better showing. That was a different set of samples, though, and the independent testing labs give very good scores to Panda, Kaspersky, and Bitdefender.
As part of my testing, I installed about 20 PCMag utilities. Panda's behavior-based malware detection identified a temporary file created by one of them as malicious, though when I looked at the detailed log it merely said "suspicious." I submitted the file to VirusTotal, to be sure it wasn't actually infected. All of the 53 antivirus engines hosted on VirusTotal gave it a clean bill of health... Read more
Does it differ from Panda Cloud Free?( I mean ,Are they two seperate products or this one is the new follower?)
So-so Malware Blocking
Last year Avira earned an impressive score in my hands-on malware blocking test, with 97 percent detection and 9.7 of 10 possible points. Not this year.
When I opened a folder containing my current collection of malware samples, Avira wiped out 72 percent immediately. That's good, but Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 at BitDefender, F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015, and ThreatTrack Vipre Antivirus 2015 all managed 83 percent.
I also tested Avira using hand-modified versions of the same sample set. For each file, I changed the name, appended nulls to change the file size, and tweaked some non-executable characters. Avira missed three of the tweaked files. However, it detected another two tweaked files whose originals it missed. I can't explain that.
After launching all of the remaining samples, I evaluated how well Avira handled them. Overall, it detected 76 percent of the malware samples and scored 7.4 points, quite a drop from last year.
Good Malicious URL Blocking
In the real world, you're more likely to encounter a brand-new malware attack via a malicious or compromised website, so I test for that ability as well. I start with a feed of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. After filtering out those that don't point directly to malicious executables, I try loading each one in a browser to see what (if anything) the antivirus will do.
Quite a few of the URLs were already defunct, despite being no more than four hours... Read more
Avira need to put some more effort because the competition is pretty high
avast! continues its series of updates and enhanced antivirus software solutions by delivering streamlined GUIs and several brand-new protection features. avast! Free Antivirus 2015 is one of the products from the antivirus editions (Pro, Internet Security and Premier) that comes with an updated interface and fresh features.
It gives you control over your home network security, supports HTTPS scans for malware and threats, as well as lets you activate a smart scan which looks for threats, updates and other issues.
The Software Updater now automatically pre-downloads software updates in the background without interfering with your work. Plus, it grabs the updates from its own servers, so the process is basically much faster.
MyAvast online console which can be run via your web browser also benefits from updates. It displays a simplified design with widgets and integrates the Rewards program where users receive Karma points and badges for mainly contributing to the online community.
Streamlined and smart GUI
At a first glance, avast! Free Antivirus 2015 hasn?t changed much since its previous 2014 version. This has to do with the fact that the developers from avast! have implemented some new features while delivering the same user-friendly environment that you got used to.
Actually, the newly reshaped GUI looks even more intuitive and follows the lines of the new trend in terms of flat design. While the old build gives you the possibility to make the panel with the key fe... Read more
Real Protection Does not come free !
Avast's lab test scores range from best to worst. It received AAA-level certification fromDennis Technology Labs and rated Advanced+ in two tests by AV-Comparatives. However, "crazy many" false positives caused it to fail the file detection test from that same lab. Bitdefender and Kaspersky generally take top scores across the board.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avast earned 9.0 of 10 possible point, better than most products tested using this same malware collection. Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015)earned a perfect 10 in this test.
My malicious URL blocking test uses newly-discovered malware-hosting URLs, typically no more than four hours old. When I challenged Avast with about 100 of these, it blocked all access to 29 percent at the URL level and eliminated another 43 percent during download, for a total block rate of 72 percent. That's quite good, though McAfee Internet Security 2015 managed to block 85 percent.
Good, Not Great
Avast Internet Security 2015 offers almost all of the expected suite components (parental control is the exception), but their effectiveness varies. I like the innovative home router scan; this is an area that most vendors overlook. And Avast offers plenty of other bonus features. The problem is, top suites just do a better job overall.
Parental Control: n/a
McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015
Pros - Good scores in independent lab tests and our hands-on tests. New high score in malicious URL blocking. Website rating, with details. Numerous bonus features.
Cons - Phishing detection rate less than Chrome or Firefox alone. Firewall does not stealth ports in all cases. Most of the product's 12 services could be disabled by malware.
Bottom Line - McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 earns a new top score in our malicious URL blocking test, and it gets good ratings from the independent labs. It comes with a raft of useful bonus tools, though the bonus firewall seemed a bit wobbly in our testing.
Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2469309,00.asp
i have red the review a few hours ago and the most disturbing thing for me is that mcafee can't protect it's self from malware.also the firewall isn't good but you can always use windows built in firewall.if they improve those components i believe more people will trust them because some components are very good such as web blocking(site adviser)
Malicious URL Blocking
Thanks to a real-time feed supplied by MRG-Effitas, I have access to a continually updated list of malicious URLs. I use these to check how each antivirus product handles extremely new threats. Does it block access to the URL, wipe out the downloaded malware, or just sit there doing nothing?
Bitdefender completely blocked access to 18 percent of the live malicious URLs I used for testing, but didn't wipe out any of the downloads that got through. It might well have caught those on launch, but that's not what this test measures. I've run two dozen products through this test so far, each with URLs no more than four hours old. The average protection rate is 33 percent, almost twice what Bitdefender managed. I'll be interested to see how Norton AntiVirus (2014) and Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2014) do when it's their turn for this test.
Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart
Good Malware Blocking
I rely more and more on the independent labs for in-depth antivirus testing, but I always need to do my own hands-on testing, to get a feel for the product's protection. To start, I opened a folder containing my just-gathered new set of malware samples. Bitdefender quickly and quietly wiped out 83 percent of those samples.
Next I launched the remaining samples and noted the antivirus's reaction. It completely missed several, ending up with an overall detection rate of 86 percent and an overall score of 8.... Read more
During a full antivirus scan, G Data reports both time elapsed and time remaining. At one point, the sum of those two times exceeded 80 minutes. However, the scan actually completed in 48 minutes. That's a good bit longer than the current average of 28 minutes to scan a clean system. Some antivirus products speed subsequent scans by skipping known safe files. Comodo Antivirus 8, for example, re-scanned my test system in less than two minutes. Not G Data; a repeat scan took just as long.
Good Malware Blocking
When I exposed G Data to a folder containing my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out most of them right away, and eliminated a few more when I tried to launch them. One way or another, G Data detected 93 percent of the samples and scored 9.3 of 10 possible points. Few products have scored better in this test, though Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did manage a perfect 10.
As always, I also checked the product's reaction to a folder containing modified versions of the same samples. Each of the modified samples has a different filename and file size from the original, and a few non-executable bytes are also different. G Data didn't immediately recognize 22 percent of the samples whose originals were wiped out on sight. Interestingly, it did recognize several modified files whose originals weren't caught until I tried to launch them. Clearly there are multiple levels of protection going on here.
G Data blocked access to 45 percen... Read more
thanks for the share petrovic !!
Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015)
Extremely small and light on resources. Fast install, super-fast scan. Top marks in two independent lab tests. Perfect score in hands-on malware blocking test. Very good malicious URL blocking. Can control protected computers from Web console. Good phishing protection.
Cons Requires Internet connectivity for full protection.
Two independent testing labs have given Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015) their top ratings, and it earned a perfect score in our hands-on malware blocking test. Add the fact that it's the smallest antivirus around and you've got a definite Editors' Choice.
Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470312,00.asp
To get a feel for the program's protection, I challenged it with my collection of malware samples. Its real-time protection kicked in the moment I opened the sample folder, quickly eliminating 66 percent of the samples. Note, though, that F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 wiped out 83 percent of those same samples on sight.
Next, I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre. In several cases it reported the sample or one of its components as suspicious, in some cases with the warning "Please do not open this file unless you trust its source." That seems a bit weak to me?a user could accidentally choose to run malware detected in this way. I made sure to avoid that error.
With 89 percent detection and 8.7 points overall, Trend Micro is just behind F-Secure among products tested with this same malware collection. Note, though, that I give greater weight to ratings from the independent labs than to my simple hands-on test.
Trend Micro's Smart Protection Network gathers telemetry from millions of computers. Among other things, it identifies malware-hosting websites, and instructs your local antivirus to prevent access to those sites. Based on my testing, it really works. The test starts with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I simply launch each URL and note whether the product blocks URL access, eliminates the download, or does nothing.
Trend Micro detected 80 percent of the samples, almost all of them at th... Read more
Read other 1 answers
Effective Malware Blocking
Panda scored very well in my hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my current malware sample collection, it didn't do anything immediately. That's because Panda waits for a significant event like file creation or modification; it doesn't scan just because a process accessed the file. When I copies the collection to another folder, Panda got to work, quickly wiping out 86 percent of the samples.
It also caught some of the remaining samples when I launched them. Overall, it detected 89 percent of the samples and earned 8.8 points, the same as Kaspersky. Among products tested with this same collection, Trend Micro has the best scores, with 93 percent detection and 9.1 points.
Results from tests with my previous malware collection aren't directly comparable, of course, but you have to appreciate what Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did with that bunch. It detected 100 percent of the samples and earned a perfect 10 points.
My malicious URL blocking test doesn't rely on a pre-set collection of samples. Rather, I take the very newest list of malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas and attempt to download real-world malware samples. The antivirus gets credit for blocking access to the URL or for wiping out the file during or immediately after the download. I keep at this test until I have results for 100 very new malicious URLs.
As I proceeded with the test, Panda's stats stayed remarkably... Read more
I should not provide any questions for Panda cause they have already identical two flip side of a story in the test.
One is independent organization test and user based test.
New version of ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus+ was tested by pcmag.com.
Results: Editor rating: excellent
Tough, effective two-way firewall. Antivirus protection licensed from Kaspersky. Free. Several useful bonus features.
Hardly any results from independent testing labs. Doesn't include every feature of Kaspersky antivirus. No phishing protection. Behavioral detection flagged both good and bad programs.
ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus+ combines a top-notch firewall with antivirus protection licensed from award-winning Kaspersky. This free program can be a good choice if you don't want a full-scale security suite.
For more go to Check Point ZoneAlarm Free Firewall 2017
Antivirus lab test results plentiful and positive. Excellent scores in our hands-on tests. Free. Network security inspector. Password manager. Extensive collection of useful, security-related bonus features.
Password manager features limited. Poor antiphishing score. Some bonus features require separate purchase.
Avast Free Antivirus 2017 combines a great free antivirus with a surprisingly extensive collection of bonus features.
more in the link above
I've read in the pinned topic "List of Antivirus Uninstallers and Removal Tools > Antivirus removal tools" at the top of this section about antivirus removal and It says to always use add/remove to uninstall programs from the computer. But when I go to the Avast site it says that the preferred method of uninstalling is to use their uninstall utillity. I'd like to say that I'm not having any issues with Avast nor am I unhappy with the product. I'm uninstalling because I want to try the free trials of Kaspersky and BitDefender and make a decision after that.
I've read a few times across multiple forums of people having problems uninstalling Avast so before I start I would like some feedback on which process I should go through to have the best chance of uninstalling without problems. I'm using Vista if this info is needed. Thanks
Hi there,The Avast uninstall utility (AvastClear) is only to be used if the uninstallation of Avast products go wrong and left behind remnants on the system.I do suggest that you uninstall it the normal way using Programs and Features - preferably in Safe Mode since the service will not be running and less likely to leave behind trash. If it refuses to uninstall in Safe Mode (programs that depended on the Windows MSI service to uninstall will not work), do a clean boot and uninstall Avast from there. After that run AvastClear.Hope this answers your questions.Regards,AlexRead other 5 answers
I am using "Avast Antivirus Free 2015".When i ran the Full System Scan,the Antivirus didn't found a single Virus or Malware.
I had seen somewhere on youtube that,having "Malwarebytes Anti Malware" works great along with your regular Free/Complete Antivirus Software for complete protection.So,i installed "Malwarebytes Anti Malware".After scanning,it detected almost 85 PUP Malwares,which i quarantined with the help of "Malwarebytes Anti Malware".I would like to mention that the "Scan for potentially unwanted programs (PUPs)" is check Marked in my Avast,which you can see from the attached Picture # 2 (Below) of Avast General Settings.
Now,does this means that my Free Avast Antirus 2015 isn't effective OR PUP Malwares are no big deal?
Avast is one of the best free Anti-virus programs out there. You need a few different tools to get everything off of your PC. Avast doesn't typically scan for PUPS by default, typically I believe you have to place a checkmark in the box you show for Avast.
Avast is going to be really good at blocking viruses above all else. You will want to continue to scan with Avast and Malwarebytes as well as programs like Superantispyware, Adwcleaner and/or Junkware removal tool. Now as a warning, running all of these, even if up to date, does not ensure a clean system.. There are a lot of places to look and clean on an infected computer.
Wasn't there an option to remove the upgrade button in avast antivirus 2015 free?
I can swear when I installed it on a friends system a few days ago that option was hidden somewhere.
im referring to the green upgrade button at top of GUI.
I dont think there was ever an option to remove top upgrade button in free version.
Definitely a Contender
Bitdefender's antivirus technology routinely earns excellent scores from the independent testing labs, though it didn't do quite as well in my hands-on malware blocking test. It holds the top score in my phishing protection test, and its parental control system works across multiple Windows and Android devices. If its strengths match your needs, it can be a very good choice. However, it's not going to unseat Norton Internet Security (2014) as PCMag's security suite Editors' Choice.
Good Malware Blocking
F-Secure also performed well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my standard collection of malware samples, the software wiped out 83 percent of them right away. By contrast, Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015$39.99 at Trend Micro detected just 66 percent of the same samples on sight.
I keep a second set of samples on hand, tweaked versions of my main collection. For each file, I change the name, append nulls to make the file size different, and modify a few non-executable bytes. Considering just the ones whose originals it did detect, F-Secure's real-time protection failed to recognize over 40 percent of the modified versions.
When I launched the few remaining samples, F-Secure's DeepGuard behavioral detection kicked in and blocked one as harmful. Overall, F-Secure detected 93 percent of the samples and earned 9.3 points, better than almost all products tested with this malware collection.
F-Secure's standalone antivirus doesn't include browser protection?that feature is reserved for the full security suite. In my malicious URL blocking test, which relies on a feed of very new malicious URLs from MRG-Effitas, F-Secure did wipe out 36 percent of the downloaded files. That's a bit better than the current average of 32 percent. Trend Micro has the current high score for this test, with 80 percent blocked, almost all of them at the URL level.
When F-Secure's cloud database can... Read more
Looking good to me! As a second demand scanner one a week.
Online Scanner F-Secure:
This suite builds on the antivirus protection found in the standalone G Data Antivirus 2015. Please read that review for full details regarding the testing that I've summarized below.
West Coast Labs certifies G Data's technology for virus detection, and it received VB100 certification in all of the recent Virus Bulletin tests that included it. In the latest test by AV-Test Institute, G Data received 6 of 6 possible points for protection against malware and totaled 16 of 18 possible points. That's good, but Kaspersky Internet Security (2015) at Amazon and Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 scored a perfect 18. The other labs that I follow don't include G Data.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, G Data earned a respectable 9.3 points, beating almost all programs tested using the same malware collection. F-Secure Internet Security 2015 also managed 9.3 points, while Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) swept the field with a perfect 10 points.
G Data also fared well in my malicious URL blocking test. When exposed to 100 newly discovered malware-hosting URLs, it prevented 51 percent of the downloads, in most cases by blocking the browser from all access to the URL. The current average protection rate for this test is 40 percent.
The product's accuracy at blocking malware-hosting URLs didn't quite carry over into blocking fraudulent (phishing) websites. In this test, G Data's detection rate was 34 perc... Read more
Malicious URL Blocking
The big difference between F-Secure's suite and the standalone antivirus is the addition of browser protection. This component blocks access to malware-hosting URLs, and it did well in testing.
I started with a collection of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas, none of them more than four hours old. Some had already vanished, but I kept launching them one after another until I had results for 100 still-working URLs.
F-Secure blocked an impressive 73 percent of the malicious URLs. Only Trend Micro Internet Security 2015 at Trend Micro and avast! Internet Security 2014 at Avast have done better, with 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively.
F-Secure's standalone antivirus lacks browser protection, but it did manage to wipe out 34 percent of the malicious payloads during or immediately after download. That's just slightly better than the average blocking rate among current programs.
So-So Phishing Detection
The browser protection component also serves to steer users away from visiting phishing sites?fraudulent sites that attempt to steal login credentials. However, it wasn't nearly as effective as it was against malware-hosting URLs.
I started by collecting suspected phishing URLs from various sites. Then I launched each simultaneously on five test systems. Naturally one test system relied on F-Secure's protection. Another used Norton Internet Security (2014) at Amazon. The remaining three relied on the b... Read more
F-Secure is good, but it's quite expensive for an antivirus that offers fewer components, better use Emsisoft, Norton or Kaspersky.
ThreatTrack Vipre Internet Security 2015
Pros - Good score in our malicious URL blocking test. Automatically applies security patches to browsers and important programs. Simple spam filter settings; accurate spam detection.
Cons - Fair to poor ratings from independent labs. Dismal antiphishing. Firewall failed some basic functions. Advanced firewall functions interfere with normal operation. Firewall easily disabled. More performance impact than most suites.
Bottom Line - The best part of ThreatTrack Vipre Internet Security 2015 is its spam filter. The antivirus and firewall components, more important overall, didn't perform as well in our testing.
Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2471672,00.asp
Shared Antivirus Features
The antivirus component in this suite is almost the same as the free Avira Antivirus 2015. The main difference is that the free edition relies on a browser plug-in for detecting malicious and fraudulent websites, whereas the Pro edition filters such sites below the browser level. That's an important distinction, because the free edition doesn't currently offer a plug-in for Internet Explorer.
Avira doesn't participate in testing with all the independent labs I follow, but those that do test it generally give it good ratings. The only significant exception is a poor score in a test by AV-Test Institute that specifically measures the ability of an antivirus product to completely clean up a detected malware infestation.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avira didn't fare so well. With 76 percent detection and an overall score of 7.4 points (out of a possible 10), it's near the bottom.Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) earned the best score of products tested using my current malware collection; it managed a perfect 10.
As noted, the suite and free antivirus use different components to detect and block malware-hosting URLs, so I expected to see differing result in my malicious URL blocking test. Despite different styles of malicious URL detection and a completely different (but very new) set of test URLs, the two products earned almost identical scores, for a protection rate of 58 percent. That's... Read more
Baloney. I used Avira to clean up an infected computer that was running Webroot. LSS, I don't have faith in this review.
When I challenged Trend Micro to protect a virtual machine test system from my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out 66 percent of them on sight. It whacked quite a few more when I tried to launch them. Its detection rate of 89 percent and overall score of 8.9 put it in between F-Secure Internet Security 2015 and Bitdefender Total Security 2015.
I tested the product's ability to block malicious URLs using newly-discovered URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. When initially tested, Trend Micro's 80 percent blocking rate for malicious URLs was a new high score. However, a few days later it was deposed by McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015, which blocked 85 percent. Both scores are impressive, given that the current average is 32 percent.Symantec Norton Security, tested simultaneously with Trend Micro, managed to block 51 percent.
A full scan of my standard test system took just 20 minutes. Because Trend Micro avoids re-scanning files already found to be safe, a repeat scan finished in less than a minute.
Trend Micro's impressive handling of malicious URLs also carried over to my test of its phishing protection ability. Its detection rate lagged just 4 percentage points behind that of Norton. Very few products come close to Norton's fraud detection rate.
Small Performance Hit
I wondered whether the additional installation of the password manager, safe browser, vault, and especially SafeSync would make this suite more of a resource eater than Trend Micro... Read more
Thanks for the info. How good is PCMag in-terms-of antivirus testing?
Pls Help Me to decided which one should i go with? My eset smart security licence end in 15 days.Pls give your reason.
I haven't tried Avast 2015/16 Beta but all the previous versions have been too much loaded ones, hate avast because of this.
Using ESET Smart Security 9, fees lighter than even ESET Smar Security 8, loving it.
Extremely fast scan. Removed many malware samples. Free.
No real-time protection. Missed older malware samples in testing. In testing, some files reported as quarantined were still present.
Malwarebytes 3.0 Free aims to wipe out pernicious malware that gets past your regular antivirus, or prevents you from installing protection. But with no real-time protection it can't be your primary antivirus.
more in the link above
Decent Malware Blocking
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Comodo scored 8.3 points out of a possible 10. That puts it on par with McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 and just a hair behind Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015. Panda Free Antivirus 2015 earned 8.0 points in this test. However, Panda received excellent ratings from many of the labs, and I weight those scores higher than my own simple hands-on testing. Quite a few products, Avast Free Antivirus 2015among them, have detected all the tweaked samples.
Interestingly, all of Comodo's malware detection occurred the instant I opened my folder of samples. It quickly and silently wiped out 83 percent of the samples, without bothering to announce what it had done. When I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre, it didn't actively block any of them.
I also exposed Comodo to a folder containing hand-modified versions of the same malware samples. I tweaked some non-executable bytes in each sample, and also changed each file's name and size. I was quite surprised to find that my simple tweaking prevented Comodo's signature-based detection system from recognizing more than half of the samples. This might suggest that its signatures need to be more open-ended and less restrictive.
Poor Blocking of Malicious URLs
Of course, in the real world you're very unlikely to simply open a folder containing malicious programs. If you encounter a malware attack, it will most likely come through a malic... Read more
Excellent Malicious URL Blocking
I've been running my malicious URL blocking test since last November. I start with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I filter out those that don't point directly to malicious executables and then try launching each URL. Even though they're typically less than four hours old, many are already MIA. For the URLs that still work, I note whether the antivirus blocks access to the site entirely, blocks the malicious download, or does nothing.
avast! Free Antivirus 2014 was one of the first products to undergo this test, and for many, many months its blocking rate of 79 percent remained the top score. In the last couple weeks, that score has been thrashed repeatedly. Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015 blocked 80 percent, a new high score. But just days later, McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 leapt into first place with 85 percent.
ESET blocked access to 32 percent of the URLs and prevented malware download for another 49 percent. Its total blocking percentage of 81 percent doesn't beat the record, but it's respectably in second place.
Average System Scan
ESET defaults to what it calls Smart Scan for malware. I had to dig deep to find a way to launch an in-depth scan. I thought the scan was going to be quick, because the progress bar filled almost to the end in just a few minutes. However, it sat there at almost-done for quite some time. In the end, it took 26 minutes, precisely the current average.
It did repo... Read more
Who believes this PCmag review fellows? According to them AVG is the best;their reviews are far away from reality.Our friend @Manzai has better review with proof..............
Excellent scores from independent labs. Scores from very good to superb in our hands-on tests. Effective ransomware protection. Many bonus features including password manager, secure browser, and file shredder.
Full antivirus scan took longer in testing than most competitors.
Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2017 combines top-scoring antivirus protection with so many bonus features it would almost qualify as a security suite.
...more in the link above
Every years it is the same story "BD is top because blablabla... "
Includes password manager, software updater, and many other Avira tools. Excellent scores from antivirus labs. Very good score in malicious URL blocking test. Free.
Many components require payment for full functionality. Sluggish antivirus protection and scanning. Real-time protection missed some executable malware files.
Avira Free Security Suite, introduced this year, packs a goodly collection of features beyond antivirus, but it doesn't come close to the power of a full-scale, paid security suite
Av-Comparatives: "Product of the year"
From the firewall to the spam filter, the sandbox to the new network scanner, there's a lot to like about Avast Internet Security 2015. Experts will appreciate its extreme configurability, too. But Avast's distinctly average protection scores from labs including AV-Comparatives and AV-Test are a significant concern, and this core antivirus issue makes the suite hard to recommend.
Smart firewall, accurate spam filter, SafeZone protects your privacy, handy new network scanner, highly configurable, some detailed Help pages
We Don't Like
Unimpressive detection results with independent testing labs, can interfere with some legitimate applications, some tools require extra spending to be useful
I have read that they removed the virus database pop-ups but I haven't even been getting program update pop-ups or any ads (not that I'm complaining about this one). Is this normal?
Can you show me your settings:
Which antivirus to put a bunch of SpyShelter Premium +Windows Firewall Control(binisoft) ?
Win7 x64 Other ? Thanks
Resource Usage (eg: CPU, RAM): draw, with the indication of Avira, since BitDefender takes overall a little bit less of CPU time, but consumes much more RAM.
Level of Protection and Features (eg: Antivirus , Firewall, Behavior Blocker): Avira has more features, configuration options and is generally more effective when it comes to the malware detection (Proactive and Reactive).
Overall Winner: Avira.
Edit: I've just noticed, that you've added Avast - as the third contestant - to BitDefender and Avira. Still Avira is the winner here. Avast is not too hungry for PC resources and perhaps has more features, but its engine is not so good, and its detection ratio usually lags behind both: BitDefender and Avira.
well my current firewall is online armor is it worth going with avast for there firewall to?
First of all, Avast 2015 was just released and in my opinion too early to make judgements. Detection rates should be identical assuming both have NG installed and running. Internet Security will have more features.
You can see what's on offer by visiting their new and updated website, http://www.avast.com
Here's a screenshot comparison between Free (left) and Internet Security (right).
Avast Firewall does have some cool tricks with tracking where your Internet-facing application are connecting too - I forgot the name from 2014.
So i did smart scan with Avast and apparently i have performance issues on my computer..? I cant solve them with Avast if i dont update Pc optimizion tool. What should i do now? Can i delete the performance issues with myself or just let them be there?
Just below the Activate button is an option to Skip.
I would select that one and just move on.
It is simply Avast trying to sell you something. Please note that I use (and am using) Avast and love it, but, like all Free Products, will still try to sell me something from time to time.
No concerns here. Just select the Skip option and then you're good
* Wrong license processing reaction,
* Optimizations of 'AvastBusiness' status,
* Send optimized 'AvastBusiness' status frame from client,
* Add limitation for number of items in 'Virus chest' that are transferred to server,
* Remove support of policy for Software Updater,
* Remove support of underlying screensaver,
* Remove support of advanced settings of SafeZone,
* Add support of HIPS,
* Move configuration files,
* Ensure upgrade of configuration files,
* Update of location for tech. support package,
* weird folders created when installing Avast to custom folder
* Trial licence not propagated to device Win2008,
* Add detection of upgrade to the new major version of AV,
* SecureLine is "Loading" for ever,
* device in danger temporarily due shields off after changing licence type,
* "[error] [bcsvc_pol] Oid" errors in bccavsvc.log,
* Business: Avast UI crash after installation.
* Improve processing of policy
* bcc errors in event log
* Win10 shown as Win8 in device description
* Optimizations of 'AvastBusiness' status*- Send optimized 'AvastBusiness' status frame from client
* Add support for 'Virus chest' limitation to server
* Remove support of underlying screensaver* - Remove support of advanced settings of SafeZone
* Update default scan tasks templates
* Add detection of upgrade to the new major version of AV
Client Program Update: Release Version 10.3.2507
D... Read more
hi i would like to see which every one prefers?
AVG proactive protection does very good work most of the time
How about this Avira Free Antivirus 15?
I'm waiting for your review
version15 has existed for months
22.214.171.1244 just a little update
2015-02-12: Version 2015, Update 8
Avira Antivirus for Windows, version 2015 update 8 has been released on February 12th, 2015.
Revised update mechanism offering more flexibility and better support for scenarios using a proxy
Additional sensors for Behavior-based Detection have been implemented
The Avira Free Antivirus detection update frequency has been increased (default frequency is set on 2h, same as Avira Antivirus Pro)
New installations include the new update frequency
Existing installations will not be updated by default. The 2h interval of the detection update has to be set manually by the user (An automatic change of existing installations will be presumably implemented with a future update)
There are no bug fixes for this update.
Hate to post because i have bad grammar and I usually use the forum of the product. Arivas' new forum stinks. So I need to change my antivirus.I'm using Ariva 2012 and support is going to run out. I kept it because Im looking for a low resource antivirus and Ariva 2012 uses 17-22mgs whether I'm idle or web browsing.. I'm not going to find something that low. My main concerns are, One web browsing speed and two security. I know,what your thinking, how can I use an old antivirus and say that. I have malwarebyes free,comodo cleaning essentials,hitman pro on my usb amoung others. I'm down to the choices of Avast 2015 free,Ariva 2015 free, and Panda 2015 free. Bitdefender has been quarantining good files and users can't get them back or that would be the first one. Ok first ariva question, is there still the problem with Ariva of the BSOD on install? And second can I turn off any feature to gain resources without giving up security. I would be very thankful if i get a response or two. I know this isn't urgent,but Im stuck. I have spent too much wasted time on the Ariva forum site.
... Read more
I have not heard any recent reports with Avira throwing a BSOD on install. avast free is good but a bit heavy if you are looking for something lite on resources. That leaves Panda but the free version includes pop-up ads prompting users to upgrade just like most other available free alternatives.Read other 13 answers
From your nominations at Free Antivirus of the Year [Nominations Thread], 5 products have been selected for the final poll phase starting today.
The poll will be closed on 31st Dec 2015 and the winner revealed on 1st Jan 2016.
Do reply in this thread which product you chose and why?
Also please take a moment to mention the Pro's and Con's you have found in the Product, so that it will be helpful for others while making their decision.
for me 360 ts....very simple for novice users....just killing the virus for you without asking!!!!!and it has very very good detection.the best for novice users
Why Panda Free Antivirus?
Panda Antivirus protects while you browse, play or work online, and you won´t even notice it's there.
It is extremely light as all the work is done in the cloud.
This is a truly 'install and forget' solution.
You won't have to worry about updates, or complex settings and decisions ever again. It works for you.
It delivers maximum and fast protection against the latest viruses, thanks to cloud-scanning from the Collective Intelligence servers. Url & web filtering with behavioural analysis protection
There's no need for massive signature files on your PC or daily updates.
Technical Requirements are one of the most modest
Operating System: Windows 8/8.1 (32 & 64 bits), Windows 7 (32 & 64 bits), Windows Vista (32 & 64 bits), Windows XP (32 bits) SP2 or later
Processor: Pentium 300 MHz or faster
RAM: 256 MB
Hard Disk: 240 MB free space
Browser: MS Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher, Mozilla Firefox 2 or higher, Google Chrome
First of all, if you made your decision to install Panda Free Antivirus, then uninstall your current security solution (antivirus or interent security) and restart your computer.
Download Panda Free Antivirus : http://www.pandasecurity.com/usa/homeusers/solutions/free-antivirus/
Run the installer as "admin"
Uncheck the Yahoo & MyStart option, these settings can affect on your browser's homepages. Then click "Accept and Install"..
Wait a... Read more
Great advice, thanks for posting.
My eset 1 year key just expired, thinking of installing Avast free av for my home pc.,is it a good choice ?
Avast free antivirus is an excellent choice in hardened mode! just make sure you deselect all the crap that you do not need during install ( secureline - browsercleaner - avast cleaner - software updater and so on. )
The winner will be decided in 2 PHASES.
This thread will be a NOMINATION THREAD.The 5 most nominated products from this thread will be considered for the POLL THREAD from Dec 15th to Dec 31st.
How many products can you nominate? : You can nominate atmost 2 products [only free]. It can be Antivirus or Internet security or Total Security products
This thread will be closed on 14-12-2015 and a new poll thread will be opened for the second phase from 15-12-2015 to 31-12-2015.
The WINNER will be declared on 1st Jan 2016.
(77 votes by 47 people)
PRODUCT NOMINATIONS (till CMLew)
Qihoo 360 (28)
ZoneAlarm Free + Firewall (2)
Microsoft Security Essentials (1)
Nano Antivirus (1)
You can also mention why you chose the product(s)........
Should I keep it?
So far it's lighter than WD and Baidu.
The two of which let malware slip in and destroy an install of Windows before I could react. And so far every firewall test I've ran has been superb vs. Windows Firewall.
I'm not all too worried about HTTP scanning or "the cloud" either. Since if need be I can just use Traffic Light or Avira Browser Safety in combination with Adguard. (I made the jump to chrome) just that it has better protection then Baidu or MSE/WD and will block something if it gets passed my browser be it on-access or when I run a scan.
I'm also curious because many testers elsewhere have given the Pro version which only adds 4 functions I really don't think there's much need for (at least in my usage case. I've only ever gotten infected from malvertisements) really high (on par with BD and the like, higher than AVG and Avira). (Score of 99%).
i would not use the av module. the firewall is fine but the av is realy mediumcore/bad. low detection rate and not up to date kasperskys signatures. if u get infected with top avs than its not the av fault,maybe u should learn abit what to install and what to click on the internet. i would uninstall zonealarm av/firewall and would go with something like Panda,avast,qihoo,avg or avira. all nice fee avs with decent protection. if u want a firewall u can try out comodo firewall,private firewall or online armor. all have hips modules so u will get pupops and need to understand them.